Well folks, the frickin’ idiots over at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives have done it again! Let me take you back to October 2005. At that time the BATFE determined that the Nevada Concealed Firearms Permit was no longer a valid determinate for exemption from having to go through the NICS/Brady background check when a permit holder wished to purchase a firearm. From October 2005 until January 2006 all of us who had valid permits had to undergo another background check, at a charge of $25, in order to obtain a firearm from a licensed dealer.
Thousands of us were really pissed off by this! We got the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Assoc. to take action and BATFE backed off. The Sheriff’s Assoc. “warned” us that the state must pass particular legislation or we would lose our privilege again. Do any of you remember proposed Assembly Bill 21 from the last legislative session? This was the bill that the Sheriff’s Assoc. promoted saying it would make Nevada compliant with the new BATFE requirements.
AB 21 went down in defeat to the chagrin of the Sheriff’s lobby. Why was it defeated? The NSCA wanted to raise CFP fees by over 100% for new permits and increase renewal fees from $15 to $125!! The Judiciary Committee couldn’t be shown by the NSCA that this was necessary and it lost.
So now comes the BATFE, more than a year after AB 21 was defeated, and says “Since legislation was not passed to bring Nevada CFP’s in compliance then it no longer will serve to exempt permit holders from the NICS/Brady background check and it’s attendant fees”
BATFE has sent an “Open Letter To All Nevada Federal Firearms Licensees” recapping this and telling your local, friendly FFL that as of July 1, 2008 they must run NICS/Brady background checks on all Nevada CFP holders that had been previously exempt.
Where do we go from here? I really don’t know. When BATFE tried to do this to Wyoming a couple of year’s ago the Wyoming Attorney General filed suit against BATFE and they backed down. Could we get our AG to do the same? Probably not. Catherine Cortez Masto has never shown any interest in firearm related issues, though I don’t know that any have been presented to her either.
My best suggestion is to tell your local, friendly FFL that you probably will be buying fewer firearms from him than in the past—sorry about that Glen, but it’s principle thing. Perhaps these guys will then get off their butts and call their legislators, etc. This is, after all, an election year. Nothing gets their juices flowing more than to be told that contributions to their campaign will be curtailed.
Additionally it wouldn’t hurt if you contacted your State Senator and Assemblyman and told them that a federal bureaucracy is holding us up, once again!!
WE MUST REMAIN EVER VIGILANT…EVER WATCHFUL
Thousands of us were really pissed off by this! We got the Nevada Sheriff’s and Chief’s Assoc. to take action and BATFE backed off. The Sheriff’s Assoc. “warned” us that the state must pass particular legislation or we would lose our privilege again. Do any of you remember proposed Assembly Bill 21 from the last legislative session? This was the bill that the Sheriff’s Assoc. promoted saying it would make Nevada compliant with the new BATFE requirements.
AB 21 went down in defeat to the chagrin of the Sheriff’s lobby. Why was it defeated? The NSCA wanted to raise CFP fees by over 100% for new permits and increase renewal fees from $15 to $125!! The Judiciary Committee couldn’t be shown by the NSCA that this was necessary and it lost.
So now comes the BATFE, more than a year after AB 21 was defeated, and says “Since legislation was not passed to bring Nevada CFP’s in compliance then it no longer will serve to exempt permit holders from the NICS/Brady background check and it’s attendant fees”
BATFE has sent an “Open Letter To All Nevada Federal Firearms Licensees” recapping this and telling your local, friendly FFL that as of July 1, 2008 they must run NICS/Brady background checks on all Nevada CFP holders that had been previously exempt.
Where do we go from here? I really don’t know. When BATFE tried to do this to Wyoming a couple of year’s ago the Wyoming Attorney General filed suit against BATFE and they backed down. Could we get our AG to do the same? Probably not. Catherine Cortez Masto has never shown any interest in firearm related issues, though I don’t know that any have been presented to her either.
My best suggestion is to tell your local, friendly FFL that you probably will be buying fewer firearms from him than in the past—sorry about that Glen, but it’s principle thing. Perhaps these guys will then get off their butts and call their legislators, etc. This is, after all, an election year. Nothing gets their juices flowing more than to be told that contributions to their campaign will be curtailed.
Additionally it wouldn’t hurt if you contacted your State Senator and Assemblyman and told them that a federal bureaucracy is holding us up, once again!!
WE MUST REMAIN EVER VIGILANT…EVER WATCHFUL
Posts
17 comments:
Is this for real? I hadn't heard anything about it & I just picked one up today w/ no fee.
Stephen please reread my post. This new BATFE reg goes into effect 7/1/08. I recommend that if you've been putting off buying that new shooter then you better get it in the next couple of weeks or pay the new, additional consequences of $25!
Nevada Sheriffs & Chiefs Association claimed at their Carson City Dog & Pony show that they really do support us.
My own observation is that they support us only to the extent that they can exploit us for dollar$ or that we make life uncomfortable for them.
As your post pointed out, they used the pretext of BATFE's requirements to attempt a HUGE fee increase that would have made CCW another privilege reserved to the wealthy.
I have to wonder, how many similar task does our NHP and Sherif's offices carry out, and what are those fees?
Work cards might be one example for comparison, I am sure there are several others.
This CCW exemption from NICS is not unique to Nevada.
I want to know, EXACTLY what Nevada is not doing that must be done to retain the NICS exemption?
Once we know that, we will know WHO is responsible for instituting corrective measures, if ANY additional fees are reasonable, and what possible fee increase is reasonable.
Here are some numbers I saved, perhaps these people should be asked these questions.
NSCA Lobbyist, Frank Adams 866-266-9870
Cell, 702/379-6591
President, LV Sheriff, Tony DeMeo, 775/751-7012
Lt. Roy Phillips, (702) 828-3418
CCW & Registration, LV Metro
http://www.sheriffs.org/about/StateSheriffsAssociations.asp
(FOR EDITOR: meld this with my previous comment, if you wish/can)
This got me interested in reading NRS a bit more. Did you know we as citizens can leagaly (per NRS 202.254) request a background check on a person wishing to purchase a firearm from us?
Though per the Nevada Department of Public Safety website, it seems a bit sketchy on how we go about it.
http://www.nvrepository.state.nv.us/special/pos.shtml
Looks like you have to fill out a form for a Brady Background Check Account. But the form asks for FFL number and Tax ID- Johnny Q Citizen wouldn't have these. The page is obvisouly geared more towards FFLs and not citizens.
Since we're legally allowed to do so, wouldn't it be prudent to advertise that we can, to make it a SIMPLE task through the website? In the interest of public safety, after all.
New Info! I was told today that BATFE is rejecting our CFP's due to the lack of background checks by some of the "rurals" on CFP renewals! At least this what an FFL friend of mine told me today.
There was a tiny provision in the original bill that would have required the same procedure for renewing a CFP as when getting a brand new one. THAT was what BATFE wanted!
That provision was far overshadowed by the demand by the NCSA's increase in fees.(read this as the Clark County Sheriff's office) Of course this played right into their hands. NCSA has NEVER been a friend of CFP holders...and now we see their revenge for not passing their fee hike!!
"I was told today that BATFE is rejecting our CFP's due to the lack of background checks by some of the "rurals" on CFP renewals! "
Gee, that sounds SO familiar!
I think that is the same pretext used last time around.
So BATFE is saying that the rural sheriff's are still shirking their responsibilities.
Hmm, just in time for the elections, a ripe opportunity for the citizens to punish their laziness!
"There was a tiny provision in the original bill that would have required the same procedure for renewing a CFP as when getting a brand new one. THAT was what BATFE wanted!"
The questions become, is that the requirement in all other states where BATFE still allows the NICS exemption for CCW permit holders?
Where is the published federal requirement that demands this?
Is Nevada being treated differently than other states, and if so, why?
I don't trust BATFE, they have a reccurring habit of making up and changing the rules as they go along.
To be valid their "Ruling's" have to be published in the federal register, I believe ninety days prior to taking effect.
A public comment period may also be required. Rules cannot just be made up on the spot to suit the whim of whoever is asserting authority that day.
So, lets see BATFE list the statute they are relying on, by name and number.
Here is the text of the latest BATFE sniveling letter.
Note that it STILL does not say EXACTLY what the underlying issue is!
So it is still unclear, is the problem a lack of back-round checks by some Sheriff's at the five year renewal, or that BATFE wants checks done EVERY YEAR?
Yearly checks are ridiculous, but then so is the entire idea that we need a "permit" to exercise an inalienable constitutionally protected RIGHT.
______________________________
U.S. Department of Justice
Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
Firearms and Explosives
Assistant Director
Washington, DC 20226
May 30, 2008
OPEN LETTER TO ALL NEVADA FEDERAL FIREARMS LICENSEES
The purpose of this letter is to advise you of an important change to the procedure you must
follow beginning July 1, 2008 in order to comply with the Brady Law,
18 U.S.C. § 922(t).
Beginning July 1, 2008, Nevada’s Carry Concealed Weapon (CCW) permits will no longer
qualify as an alternative to a National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) check
through the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). Please note that this change also applies to
pawn transactions. The change is discussed in detail below.
BACKGROUND
The permanent provisions of the Brady Law took effect on November 30, 1998. The Brady Law
generally requires licensed dealers to initiate a NICS background check through the FBI (or the
State in a Point of Contact State) before transferring a firearm to an unlicensed individual.
However, the Brady Law contains a few exceptions to the NICS check requirement, including an
exception for holders of certain State permits to possess, carry, or acquire firearms. The law and
implementing regulations provide that permits issued within the past 5 years qualify as
alternatives to the NICS check if certain other requirements are satisfied. Most importantly, the
authority issuing the permit must conduct a NICS background check and must deny a permit to
anyone prohibited from possessing firearms under Federal, State, or local law.
In 1998, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) sent an Open Letter to
all Nevada Federal firearms licensees (FFLs) advising them that the Nevada carry concealed
weapons permit would qualify as an alternative to the background check required under the
Brady Law. ATF’s recognition of these permits as a Brady alternative was based on the fact that
Nevada conducted background checks through NICS prior to the issuance or renewal of these
permits, and denied a permit to anyone prohibited under Federal, State, or local law.
In March 2004, ATF began a review of all States that had permits that qualified as NICS check
alternatives to determine if they still qualified. In May 2005, we informed Nevada State officials
that Nevada no longer met the qualifications. Nevada was not able to adequately address the
deficiencies of the Nevada CCW permit in meeting the statutory and regulatory requirements for
qualifying as a NICS alternative.
- 2 -
Accordingly, on October 17, 2005, we sent an open letter to Nevada FFLs stating that effective
October 19, 2005, the CCW permit no longer qualified as a NICS check alternative.
Subsequently, the Nevada Department of Public Safety and the Nevada County Sheriffs entered
into a Memorandum of Understanding addressing the Nevada CCW shortcomings in qualifying
as a NICS alternative. This Memorandum of Understanding was accepted by ATF as an interim
measure until the shortcomings in qualifying as a NICS alternative could be remedied by the
Nevada State Legislature in 2007 session. Accordingly, on January 5, 2006, we sent an Open
Letter to Nevada FFLs stating that the Nevada CCW permit again qualified as a NICS check
alternative.
The Nevada State Legislature did not enact laws in the 2007 session necessary to remedy the
shortcomings of the Nevada CCW permit in qualifying as a NICS check alternative.
Specifically, the carry concealed weapons permit can no longer qualify as an alternative to the
background check required by the Brady Law.
HOW THIS AFFECTS FFLS
Beginning July 1, 2008, a NICS check must be conducted before transferring a firearm to an
unlicensed person, even if the unlicensed person has a Nevada carry concealed weapon permit.
Because Nevada is a NICS Point-of-Contact State, you will contact the Nevada Department of
Public Safety, rather than the FBI, to conduct this check.
We hope that your transition to this new procedure on July 1, 2008, will not be an inconvenience.
As always, we thank you for your cooperation.
Audrey Stucko
Acting Assistant Director
(Enforcement Programs and Services)
As ATF just points us to Carson City and/or a state legiscritter, and they point us back to ATF, it has been hard to find out much about the 'deficiencies' but I have been able to put it together now - two words. They wanted the state statutes to add 'and renewal' anyplace it talked about 'the application' making it the application or renewal. That is all it is. We need to work NOW to find legiscritters that will introduce and push a bill to fix this WITHOUT a HUGE TAX increase. Mike, it will take more than just the handful of gun dealers - it will take all of us, not just us gun dealers to 'get off our butts' and do something about it. Even then, it may be as long as two years before this changes, as a law always takes some time after passing before going into effect, and then we have to wait for ATF to do something about it. They seem to be in no hurry to help us either, based on my phone call with them this week.
This is really going to mess up my annual 4th of July gun purchase - maybe I will have to do ammo instead as I will do everything I can to avoid paying this TAX, even if I have to transfer a gun to a dealer in Utah and pay their $7.50 brady TAX instead.
Glen, sorry about my attitude in the original post. You ARE RIGHT it is going to take everyone to approach their individual legislators and INSIST that our CFP laws be fixed, but not at the cost of doubling the fees!!
Here's a solution for all of you guys wanting to buy a firearm, but not wanting to have to go through a NICS background check and its expense...buy a gun from a friend! The law allows anyone to purchase a firearm from a private citizen without going through the Brady background!
Let's exercise one of the few remaining freedoms we have left, our freedom to choose!!
Mike, and ALL readers.
Please be very careful in buying guns from a friend!
It IS perfectly legal to buy FROM a friend, but you absolutely CANNOT have a friend buy a gun for you!
Genuine firearm gifts are legal, request for some one to obtain a gun for you are NOT.
Guns may NOT be transferred across state lines without going through a dealer, even among relatives.
I am sure BATFE would love to cite an increase in Nevada "Straw Man" purchases to put more dealers out of business, and more RKBA defenders in prison!
Glen, Mike, all.
Believe it or not, but right now is the time to start pressing our state legislature for the bill's we want to support, particularly if they are not up for election this year.
Potential bills are pondered and roughly drafted several months before the legislature convenes.
Even if they are in a contested race, they need to hear from us NOW.
Unless you are certain they will lose, now is the time to make your views known.
I would also suggest that our issues be brought up to candidates.
Our issues will be a break from the topical issues of the day, how well they answer may be a good clue as to the depth of their character and ability to reason.
Richard: I never want anyone to break the law by being a strawman, and I never implied such. With "Buy a Gun Week" coming soon (see http://www.buyagunweek.com/) we should be considering how best to participate.
This will be the first week that the new BATFE reg goes into effect. I'd suggest that this might be a good opportunity to inform FFL's that we need their help in removing this onerous BATFE reg.
If we can get the FFL's to understand that this reg will hurt their business perhaps we can get them to spread the word to their customers.
This doesn't mean that we shouldn't also challenge every political candidate we can to propose modifications to our CFP to make it comply with BATFE. (Or better yet, get the gumption to challenge the regulation in toto).
I was not saying you were supporting Straw Purchases, just reminding everyone to be very careful.
You never know who is watching.
Say you visit a gun-shop with a friend, you find a gun you have been trying to locate for years, but you are a hundred dollars short of the price.
Your buddy loans you the money, and a bystander sees him hand it to you.
The way they see it could be enough for an allegation of a straw purchase.
You just cannot be too careful.
Glen you stated in your post "They wanted the state statutes to add 'and renewal' anyplace it talked about 'the application' making it the application or renewal. That is all it is." The words "and renewal" for what? For a "new" application:
NRS 202.3657 Application for permit
2.(c) Must demonstrates competence with each specific firearm
6.An application submitted pursuant to this section must be completed and signed under oath by the applicant. The application must include among other things:
(h) A nonrefundable fee in the amount necessary to obtain the report required pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 202.366; (which is the applicant’s fingerprints to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its report concerning the criminal history of the applicant. Which is the $45.00 fee, (some counties do charge more.)) and
(i) A nonrefundable fee set by the sheriff not to exceed $60. (what the SO office keeps)
For a renewal:
NRS 202.3677 Application for renewal of permit; fees; demonstrated continued competence required.
1. If a permittee wishes to renew his permit, the permittee must complete and submit to the sheriff who issued the permit an application for renewal of the permit.
2. An application for the renewal of a permit must:
(a) Be completed and signed under oath by the applicant;
(b) Contain a statement that the applicant is eligible to receive a permit pursuant to NRS 202.3657; and
(c) Be accompanied by a nonrefundable fee of $25. (for the SO's office)
Now I can't say for all of Nevada's counties but for Churchill, Lyon, Washoe, Storey, Clark, and Carson all charge the $25.00 renewal fee AND the nonrefundable fee in the amount necessary to obtain the report required pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 202.366; (which is the applicant’s fingerprints to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its report concerning the criminal history of the applicant.) The $45.00. (Could not find out about the other counties.)
Although NRS does not specifically spell it out in its "renewal of permits" section (NRS 202.3677), it does reference it in line 2.(b) "Contain a statement that the applicant is eligible to receive a permit pursuant to NRS 202.3657"
NRS 202.3657 includes the line 6.(h) A nonrefundable fee in the amount necessary to obtain the report required pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 202.366; (which is the applicant’s fingerprints to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its report concerning the criminal history of the applicant. Which is the $45.00 fee) which one can infer to mean that the $25.00 AND the $45.00 background check fees apply for the renewal permit. Which means ALL of Nevada counties are to do background checks on not just the initial application for a CCW, but ALSO on the renewal application for a CCW as well.
If that is what is needed for all counties to comply with ATFs needs, to add the "A nonrefundable fee in the amount necessary to obtain the report required pursuant to subsection 1 of NRS 202.366", (which is the applicant’s fingerprints to the Central Repository for Nevada Records of Criminal History for submission to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for its report concerning the criminal history of the applicant.) to the renewal of permit section of the NRS, then that could be added to the NRS statutes to retain the CCW exemption.
There would not need to be any fee increase as the fee is already in NRS statutes.
This issue, and this thread, will spring back to life next week.
Once the "exemption" is truly gone maybe enough CCW holders will get active to force action from our legislature.
I doubt we should look for any genuine help from the NSCA, unless they get their bribe in the form of usurious fee's.
Oh oh, there I go, being "Unprofessional" again!
Post a Comment